Members of Congress continue to express concern about the Administration's
policies regarding the dissemination of scientific findings involving
research in areas such as climate change. Early this year, controversy
erupted over attempts to restrict a NASA researcher from discussing
climate change. Although this matter was settled, other concerns were
raised about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's policies.
More lately, Rep. David Wu (D-OR) requested a Government Accountability
Office investigation regarding allegations of similar practices. This
week, the National Science Board provided its views on the dissemination
of research findings in response to a letter from Senator John McCain
(R-AZ). A summary of each of these activities follows:
In January, there were reports that a NASA official attempted to prevent
a prominent agency scientist from discussing climate change. House Science
Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME),
and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) wrote letters expressing their concern
to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. Griffin quickly issued an eight-page
information dissemination policy, winning praise from Boehlert and Science
Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN) (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/015.html
and http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/036.html.
)
Less than a month after the resolution of this matter, Boehlert wrote
to Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. In this April 7 letter, the full text
of which is available at http://www.house.gov/science/press/l09/109-226.htm.,
Boehlert wrote that he appreciated Lautenbacher's expressed support
for "open and unfettered scientific communication."
Boehlert then states: "However, it seems clear that, despite
your commitment, at least some scientists at NOAA continue to feel that
the agency is not encouraging open communication. . . . NOAA's efforts
to attract, retain and make full use of the nation's best scientists
will be stymied if your scientists and the scientific community at-large
believe that NOAA seeks to limit the discussion of climate science and
its implications. And the issue of climate change is too important to
countenance any scientists feeling intimidated or constrained about
discussing the matter, regardless of whether that feeling is the result
of specific policy actions or of misimpressions that create a stifling
atmosphere." Boehlert recommended NOAA take corrective steps
similar to those which NASA instituted.
On May 2, Rep. Wu, Ranking Member of the Science Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology and Standards, wrote to Comptroller General David M. Walker
of the Government Accountability Office. Wu is critical of the Bush
Administration's information dissemination policies, and previously
had asked OSTP Director John Marburger a series of pointed questions
at a February hearing. In his letter, Wu stated: "I hereby request
that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate allegations
of political litmus tests for science appointees, manipulation of scientific
findings and reports by political appointees, and politically driven
censorship of scientists. These allegations are not confirmed to a single
office or agency. Despite administration assurances that these assertions
have no merit and that the appropriate authorities were looking into
these matters, the allegations have continued." Wu asked GAO
to examine six specific areas, requesting a final report by February
2008. This letter can be read at http://www.house.gov/wu/
The issue of "political litmus tests" has been raised before,
and was the subject of a National Academies committee report in November
2004 (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/011.html.)
A May 12 National Science Board memorandum contains as an attachment
a five-page letter to Senator McCain signed by NSB Chairman Warren Washington.
McCain wrote to the Board on February 8 asking it to examine (as stated
by Washington in his reply) "existing policies of Federal science
agencies concerning the suppression and distortion of research findings
and the impact these actions could have on the quality and credibility
of future Government-sponsored scientific research results."
The Washington letter comments favorably on NASA's newly instituted
employee policy, citing it as "one way to effectively articulate
an agency's goals of scientific openness." The letter continues,
"The survey of the agencies' IG [in-house Inspector Generals]
indicated that no reports were issued to indicate scientific information
was suppressed or distorted at the agencies involved with the Board's
reviews." The letter's "overall conclusion" was as
follows: "Upon review as per your request, the Board finds that
there exists no consistent Federal policy regarding the dissemination
of research results by Federal employees. An overarching set of principles
for the communication of scientific information by Government scientists,
policy makers, and managers should be developed and issued by the Administration
to serve as the umbrella under which each agency would develop its specific
policies and procedures. The Board believes a need exists for all Federal
agencies that conduct research to establish policies and procedures
to encourage open exchange of data and results of research conducted
by agency scientists, while preventing the intentional or unintentional
suppression or distortion of research findings and accommodating appropriate
agency review. A clear distinction should be made between communicating
professional research results and data versus the interpretation of
data and results in a context that seeks to influence, through the injection
of personal viewpoints, public opinion or the formulation of public
policy. Delay in taking these actions may contribute to a potential
loss of confidence by the American public and broader research community
regarding the quality and credibility of Government sponsored scientific
research results." The National Science Board letter may be
read at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/2006/0509/major_actions.pdf
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl